Does Archaeology Prove that Baptism May Be Administered by Sprinkling?
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Feature
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The claim is commonly made that ancient literary documents, supported by
archaeological discoveries, sustain the idea that “sprinkling” was an accepted form
of ancient “baptism.” Examine this issue with us in this month’s Feature article.
Those who practice ritualistic “sprinkling” as a substitute for water immersion,
commonly allege that “baptism,” from the very commencement of the Christian age,
was implemented either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. They claim that
ancient literary references, together with modern archaeological discoveries,
support this diversity. Will this assertion stand up under the test of critical
scholarship?
First, it must be noted that the expression “baptismal sprinkling” is an oxymoron.
The original term baptizo meant to “dip, submerge, immerse.” The Greek historian
Polybius (cir. 203-123 B.C.) used the word to describe a sinking ship (2.51.6). In the
Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the cognate form, bapto, clearly is
distinguished from the terms “sprinkle” (rhantizo), and “pour” (cheo) (see Leviticus
14:15-16).
To speak of “baptismal sprinkling,” therefore, would be the equivalent of talking
about a “walking swim.” The verbs represent entirely different actions.
Second, there is not a solitary passage in the New Testament that lends any
support to the idea that the act called “baptism” by the New Testament writers,
was administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person’s head. The
theological connection between “baptism,” and the burial and resurrection of Christ
(Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), negates the notion that the rite may be
performed by sprinkling or pouring.
The celebrated Lutheran historian, John Mosheim, declared that “baptism was
administered in this [the first] century, without public assemblies, in places
appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of
the whole body in the baptismal font” (p. 35).
It is not surprising, therefore, that evidence for this doctrinal aberration should be
sought beyond the confines of sacred literature. Let us approach this brief study
from two angles.
Literary History
The careful student of history does not hesitate to acknowledge that a digression
from the biblical pattern of baptism came fairly early in the post-apostolic period.
The first historical reference to a departure from immersion is in a document
known as the Didache (cir. A.D. 120-160). It sanctions pouring water upon the
head – as an emergency measure (7).
The first defense of sprinkling was offered by Cyprian (cir. A.D. 200-258), a writer in
Carthage, who allowed sprinkling as a substitute for immersion, but only when
“necessity compels” – as in the case of acute sickness (Epistle lxxv).
The first specifically documented case of sprinkling involved a man by the name of
Novatian (cir. A.D. 250), who lived in Rome. Novatian was believed to be at the point
of death, and so was sprinkled in his sick bed. However, the case was very unusual.
Eusebius of Caesarea (cir. A.D. 263-339), known as the father of church history,
described the incident. He wrote that Novatian thereafter was restricted from
being appointed as a church officer. Why was this? Because it was not deemed
“lawful” that one administered “baptism” by “aspersion, as he was, should be
promoted to the order of the clergy” (Ecclesiastical History, VI.XLIII). For a more
complete discussion of this case, see McClintock & Strong (pp. 209-210).
Even when the church already had become deeply engulfed in various elements of
apostasy, the Council of Nemours (A.D. 1284) “limited sprinkling to cases of
necessity.” Thomas Aquinas (cir. A.D. 1225-1274), one of the most prominent
Catholic theologians, acknowledged that immersion was the “safer” mode, though
he allowed sprinkling or pouring. In was not until the Council of Ravenna (A.D. 1311)
that sprinkling officially was made an option for administering “baptism” (Schaff, p.
201).
The literary records of antiquity afford no comfort to the advocates of the sprinkling
and pouring ritual.
Archaeological Evidence
Much has been made over the past century of the archaeological evidence that
purportedly demonstrates that sprinkling was an accepted practice in the primitive
church. Charles Bennett’s work particularly has been cited frequently in this effort
(pp. 395-408).
Professor Bennett, a Methodist scholar, contended that “a large measure of
Christian liberty [was] allowed in the Church, by which the mode of baptism could be
readily adjusted to the particular circumstances” (p. 407). Bennett’s conclusion was
based upon certain discoveries, principally frescos (paintings done on fresh plaster)
in the ancient catacombs (underground tunnels) near the city of Rome.
An evaluation of that evidence, however, demonstrates that it falls far short of the
coveted case. Here are some of the basic facts.
1. The oldest examples that Bennett introduced (pictured in his book) are
classified simply as “pre-Constantine”; they reach back, he says, “in all
probability, to the second century” (p. 402). More recent studies of the
catacombs (e.g., Paul Sytger’s work) “seem to indicate that the oldest
Christian catacombs go back to about A.D. 150” (Free/Vos, p. 290).
However, as we have shown already, there is no dispute about the fact that
the digression of pouring and sprinkling dates at least to the middle of the
second century (Didache, 7). But that is not New Testament evidence.
Moreover, one must remind himself that even in the age of the apostles,
indications of apostasy already were being manifested (cf. 2 Thessalonians
2:1ff; esp. v. 7).
2. Even in those earliest scenes (depicted in Bennett’s volume), there is
considerable diversity of opinion as to what the images represent. In not a
single instance is there any concrete evidence of sprinkling or pouring. The
graphics simply show the alleged candidate standing out in the water (either
unclothed or partially clothed), while another person is nearby on the shore.
Professor Cobern, citing Schaff, even says that “the very oldest picture
represents the new convert as ‘coming up after immersion from the river
which reaches over his knees’. . . ” (p. 400). Schaff, a pedobaptist, goes on to
suggest (based upon the reference in the Didache) that the immersion may
have been supplemented by the pouring of water. But his statement is mere
speculation; the artwork itself provides no suggestion of that.
3. Perhaps the oldest and best preserved representation of the “baptism” of
Christ (which depicts John pouring water upon the Lord’s head) is a mosaic
from a baptismal font in Ravenna, known as San Giovanni. But this artistic
representation dates only to the mid-5th century A.D., far removed from the
apostolic period.
Even Professor Bennett confesses that this mosaic also contains a symbol of
the Jordan “river-god,” thus has a heathen mixture (p. 404). It can hardly be
representative of genuine Christianity.
4. In an article published two decades ago, Dr. George E. Rice, associate
professor of New Testament, Andrews University Theological Seminary,
argued the case that the archaeological evidence overwhelmingly testifies to
immersion as the usual mode of baptism during the first ten to fourteen
centuries of the Christian era (Rice). This fact really is beyond dispute.
Conclusion
The claim that the discoveries within the Roman catacombs provide evidence for
the practice of sprinkling or pouring, as a form of “baptism,” is borne more of desire
than evidence. The distinguished R.C. Foster has summed up the matter poignantly.
“The catacomb evidence has been the subject of much controversy. De Rossi tried
to use the inscriptions and pictures to establish the teachings and claims of the
Roman Catholic Church. He was vigorously answered by the archaeologist Schultze.
Various attempts have been made by pedobaptists to use the catacomb pictures as
proof that the original action was sprinkling or pouring. But the very fact that the
catacomb pictures are filled with heathen figures and conceptions intermingled with
the Christian, show that the simple faith had already begun to be corrupted, and
that too much weight can not be attached to pictures which combine the Good
Shepherd with flying genii, heads of the seasons, doves, peacocks, vases, fruits and
flowers” (p. 22).
There simply is no proof, biblical or otherwise, that the original Christians – under
the leadership of inspired men – practiced sprinkling as a form of baptism.
Sprinkling is a digression from the New Testament pattern and ought to be
abandoned by those who are interested doing God’s will correctly.
SOURCES
Bennett, Charles W. (1890), Christian Archaeology (New York: Hunt & Eaton).
Cobern, Camden M. (1921), The New Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Funk
& Wagnalls).
Eusebius (1955 ed.), Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Foster, R.C. (1971), Studies in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House).
Free, Jack & Vos Howard (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan).
McClintock, John & Strong, James (1970 ed), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,
and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Vol VII.
Mosheim, John Lawrence (1959 ed.), Ecclesiastical History (Rosemead,CA: Old
Paths Book Club), Vol 2.
Rice, George E. (1981), “Baptism in the Early Church,” Ministry (March).
Schaff, Philip, et al. (1894), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
(New York: Funk & Wagnalls), Vol I.
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Feature
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The claim is commonly made that ancient literary documents, supported by
archaeological discoveries, sustain the idea that “sprinkling” was an accepted form
of ancient “baptism.” Examine this issue with us in this month’s Feature article.
Those who practice ritualistic “sprinkling” as a substitute for water immersion,
commonly allege that “baptism,” from the very commencement of the Christian age,
was implemented either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. They claim that
ancient literary references, together with modern archaeological discoveries,
support this diversity. Will this assertion stand up under the test of critical
scholarship?
First, it must be noted that the expression “baptismal sprinkling” is an oxymoron.
The original term baptizo meant to “dip, submerge, immerse.” The Greek historian
Polybius (cir. 203-123 B.C.) used the word to describe a sinking ship (2.51.6). In the
Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the cognate form, bapto, clearly is
distinguished from the terms “sprinkle” (rhantizo), and “pour” (cheo) (see Leviticus
14:15-16).
To speak of “baptismal sprinkling,” therefore, would be the equivalent of talking
about a “walking swim.” The verbs represent entirely different actions.
Second, there is not a solitary passage in the New Testament that lends any
support to the idea that the act called “baptism” by the New Testament writers,
was administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person’s head. The
theological connection between “baptism,” and the burial and resurrection of Christ
(Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), negates the notion that the rite may be
performed by sprinkling or pouring.
The celebrated Lutheran historian, John Mosheim, declared that “baptism was
administered in this [the first] century, without public assemblies, in places
appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of
the whole body in the baptismal font” (p. 35).
It is not surprising, therefore, that evidence for this doctrinal aberration should be
sought beyond the confines of sacred literature. Let us approach this brief study
from two angles.
Literary History
The careful student of history does not hesitate to acknowledge that a digression
from the biblical pattern of baptism came fairly early in the post-apostolic period.
The first historical reference to a departure from immersion is in a document
known as the Didache (cir. A.D. 120-160). It sanctions pouring water upon the
head – as an emergency measure (7).
The first defense of sprinkling was offered by Cyprian (cir. A.D. 200-258), a writer in
Carthage, who allowed sprinkling as a substitute for immersion, but only when
“necessity compels” – as in the case of acute sickness (Epistle lxxv).
The first specifically documented case of sprinkling involved a man by the name of
Novatian (cir. A.D. 250), who lived in Rome. Novatian was believed to be at the point
of death, and so was sprinkled in his sick bed. However, the case was very unusual.
Eusebius of Caesarea (cir. A.D. 263-339), known as the father of church history,
described the incident. He wrote that Novatian thereafter was restricted from
being appointed as a church officer. Why was this? Because it was not deemed
“lawful” that one administered “baptism” by “aspersion, as he was, should be
promoted to the order of the clergy” (Ecclesiastical History, VI.XLIII). For a more
complete discussion of this case, see McClintock & Strong (pp. 209-210).
Even when the church already had become deeply engulfed in various elements of
apostasy, the Council of Nemours (A.D. 1284) “limited sprinkling to cases of
necessity.” Thomas Aquinas (cir. A.D. 1225-1274), one of the most prominent
Catholic theologians, acknowledged that immersion was the “safer” mode, though
he allowed sprinkling or pouring. In was not until the Council of Ravenna (A.D. 1311)
that sprinkling officially was made an option for administering “baptism” (Schaff, p.
201).
The literary records of antiquity afford no comfort to the advocates of the sprinkling
and pouring ritual.
Archaeological Evidence
Much has been made over the past century of the archaeological evidence that
purportedly demonstrates that sprinkling was an accepted practice in the primitive
church. Charles Bennett’s work particularly has been cited frequently in this effort
(pp. 395-408).
Professor Bennett, a Methodist scholar, contended that “a large measure of
Christian liberty [was] allowed in the Church, by which the mode of baptism could be
readily adjusted to the particular circumstances” (p. 407). Bennett’s conclusion was
based upon certain discoveries, principally frescos (paintings done on fresh plaster)
in the ancient catacombs (underground tunnels) near the city of Rome.
An evaluation of that evidence, however, demonstrates that it falls far short of the
coveted case. Here are some of the basic facts.
1. The oldest examples that Bennett introduced (pictured in his book) are
classified simply as “pre-Constantine”; they reach back, he says, “in all
probability, to the second century” (p. 402). More recent studies of the
catacombs (e.g., Paul Sytger’s work) “seem to indicate that the oldest
Christian catacombs go back to about A.D. 150” (Free/Vos, p. 290).
However, as we have shown already, there is no dispute about the fact that
the digression of pouring and sprinkling dates at least to the middle of the
second century (Didache, 7). But that is not New Testament evidence.
Moreover, one must remind himself that even in the age of the apostles,
indications of apostasy already were being manifested (cf. 2 Thessalonians
2:1ff; esp. v. 7).
2. Even in those earliest scenes (depicted in Bennett’s volume), there is
considerable diversity of opinion as to what the images represent. In not a
single instance is there any concrete evidence of sprinkling or pouring. The
graphics simply show the alleged candidate standing out in the water (either
unclothed or partially clothed), while another person is nearby on the shore.
Professor Cobern, citing Schaff, even says that “the very oldest picture
represents the new convert as ‘coming up after immersion from the river
which reaches over his knees’. . . ” (p. 400). Schaff, a pedobaptist, goes on to
suggest (based upon the reference in the Didache) that the immersion may
have been supplemented by the pouring of water. But his statement is mere
speculation; the artwork itself provides no suggestion of that.
3. Perhaps the oldest and best preserved representation of the “baptism” of
Christ (which depicts John pouring water upon the Lord’s head) is a mosaic
from a baptismal font in Ravenna, known as San Giovanni. But this artistic
representation dates only to the mid-5th century A.D., far removed from the
apostolic period.
Even Professor Bennett confesses that this mosaic also contains a symbol of
the Jordan “river-god,” thus has a heathen mixture (p. 404). It can hardly be
representative of genuine Christianity.
4. In an article published two decades ago, Dr. George E. Rice, associate
professor of New Testament, Andrews University Theological Seminary,
argued the case that the archaeological evidence overwhelmingly testifies to
immersion as the usual mode of baptism during the first ten to fourteen
centuries of the Christian era (Rice). This fact really is beyond dispute.
Conclusion
The claim that the discoveries within the Roman catacombs provide evidence for
the practice of sprinkling or pouring, as a form of “baptism,” is borne more of desire
than evidence. The distinguished R.C. Foster has summed up the matter poignantly.
“The catacomb evidence has been the subject of much controversy. De Rossi tried
to use the inscriptions and pictures to establish the teachings and claims of the
Roman Catholic Church. He was vigorously answered by the archaeologist Schultze.
Various attempts have been made by pedobaptists to use the catacomb pictures as
proof that the original action was sprinkling or pouring. But the very fact that the
catacomb pictures are filled with heathen figures and conceptions intermingled with
the Christian, show that the simple faith had already begun to be corrupted, and
that too much weight can not be attached to pictures which combine the Good
Shepherd with flying genii, heads of the seasons, doves, peacocks, vases, fruits and
flowers” (p. 22).
There simply is no proof, biblical or otherwise, that the original Christians – under
the leadership of inspired men – practiced sprinkling as a form of baptism.
Sprinkling is a digression from the New Testament pattern and ought to be
abandoned by those who are interested doing God’s will correctly.
SOURCES
Bennett, Charles W. (1890), Christian Archaeology (New York: Hunt & Eaton).
Cobern, Camden M. (1921), The New Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Funk
& Wagnalls).
Eusebius (1955 ed.), Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Foster, R.C. (1971), Studies in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House).
Free, Jack & Vos Howard (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan).
McClintock, John & Strong, James (1970 ed), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,
and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Vol VII.
Mosheim, John Lawrence (1959 ed.), Ecclesiastical History (Rosemead,CA: Old
Paths Book Club), Vol 2.
Rice, George E. (1981), “Baptism in the Early Church,” Ministry (March).
Schaff, Philip, et al. (1894), Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
(New York: Funk & Wagnalls), Vol I.
